Some of the responses - a small minority - have been along the lines, "don't attack the young"

Along the lines -

"Start
attacking young people and you'll lose the very people you're trying
to reach..."

The first thing I would say is that the video is definitely an attack on Guy McPherson (as in, 'shooting the messenger'), however I do not see my response so much as an attack as a set of observations.

The woman in the video may be young but she is ranting on a public platform as a journalist as it were.

She is not a private person expressing private views but as this is in a very public platform is as subject to analysis - even attack- as anyone else.

Generally I would make the observation that there are too many opinions without reference to fact and not enough research and analysis.

****

The following comments stand for me as a beacon of thoughtful and insightful analysis in the face of prejudice and unfounded opinions, so I have decided to repost them.

It
is so rare that people can put aside opinions backed up by evidence
for actual analysis. So, appreciate the rareness of the occasion

.

This
is a millennial expressing all the angst of her generation and she
hits all the group's major weaknesses. I tried very hard to be
sympathetic but her condescension was so off putting that I could
only feel annoyed with her rant. She is angry that her future is
going to be abruptly cut short with no effort being made by the
generation that brought us to this moment in human history and she is
taking it out on Guy.

Her
world is one of technological answers to life's many problems and she
is outraged that someone suggests that no power will save us. She
feels entitled to the future and how dare anyone tell her she cannot
have it. This is the generation that was never told, "No."

She
is astoundingly confident in telling Guy what he/we should do yet she
has no clue as to what that might actually be other than to have
hope.

According to Simon Sinek, a psychologist who has studied this
group in depth, they have very limited coping skills for dealing with
stress as a result of their addiction to technology. They have a
stunted ability to form deep and lasting relationships so they are
feeling isolated. They have many acquaintances but no deep
friendships. Hence her inability to understand Guy's advice to live a
life of excellence. She literally does not know what that means. She
does not understand that this would be wonderful advice no matter
what her future might hold.

Add
to this the expectation of instant gratification and you hear her
demand that NTHE is utterly and completely unacceptable. According to
Sinek, most millennials will never find real joy or deep fulfilment
in life because if it does not come instantaneously and effortlessly
they have no clue as to how to acquire it. You hear this in her
disparagement of Guy's admonition to seek joy. Never does he suggest
that life is meaningless and that no one should give a f*ck. Quite
the opposite. But, once again, she has no clue what this means. She
hears accepting reality on its terms as nihilism.

I
find her quotes most annoying, as if Guy has not lived on the planet
long enough to have considered these things and rejected them when
reality proved too real to pretend it isn't. I am finding that many
people prefer illusion and delusion to accepting reality on its
terms. Especially for the millennials, if reality isn't what they
need and/or want it to be then the rest of us better well buy into
their delusions or there will be hell to pay.

In
a nut shell, this is not a critique of Guy, per se, because, other
than criticising him for his lack of hope, she does not challenge him
on any of the data. She is a spiritually immature individual who is
livid that this one, lone voice is saying to the world, we had a
narrow window to do something to alter the trajectory of NTHE but we
missed it. And she is unwilling and/or unable to accept this reality.
She cannot bear even one voice telling her that she cannot have what
she wants.

****

The above comments are observations not an attack.Every generation has its own conditioning. In my own case my parents having been through war and depression were determined that their children would not go through this again. They provided for us in a way that was unprecedented (with post -World War 11 affluence) and will never be repeated.The baby boomer generation spawned by the previous generation were the most self-centred in human history (although this came with things that were quite liberating, or so it seemed at the time.In this sense some of the ideas of the likes of Steve Bannon have a certain sense about them.It is this generation and their attitudes that gave way to the millennial generation that is being 'attacked'.The other point is that each generation has by-and-large done the best by their children within the context of what was available to them.We should never overlook the huge role that corporate, government and media played in conditioning each generation of the 20h Century through to now.Parents are themselves the product
of a similar, but different, conditioning process so can't really be
blamed.

To
give a clue as to what I am trying to say I recommend as weekend
viewing this documentary on how whole generations have been
conditioned - in this case he is talking about Freudian psychology.The documentary is long but well worthwhile the effort if you haven't seen it already

Watch
this and then say that you are not subject to this manipulation in
any way or form.